Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

resource group: support more mode for burstable #9044

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lhy1024
Copy link
Contributor

@lhy1024 lhy1024 commented Feb 7, 2025

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: Close #9057

What is changed and how does it work?

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
    image

Release note

None.

Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Copy link
Contributor

ti-chi-bot bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

Copy link
Contributor

ti-chi-bot bot commented Feb 7, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from lhy1024, ensuring that each of them provides their approval before proceeding. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added do-not-merge/needs-linked-issue release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. dco-signoff: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the dco. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 7, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.24%. Comparing base (d9abd06) to head (b91a317).
Report is 1438 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9044      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.65%   76.24%   +0.59%     
==========================================
  Files         332      468     +136     
  Lines       33902    71464   +37562     
==========================================
+ Hits        25650    54491   +28841     
- Misses       6056    13567    +7511     
- Partials     2196     3406    +1210     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 76.24% <80.00%> (+0.59%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 7, 2025
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
@lhy1024 lhy1024 marked this pull request as ready for review February 11, 2025 05:56
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 11, 2025
defaultLoanCoefficient = 2
maxAssignTokens = math.MaxFloat64 / 1024 // assume max client connect is 1024
slotExpireTimeout = 10 * time.Minute
defaultBurstLimitFactor = 8.0
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if this is not suitable for high rate limit settings.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about 2 or 4? Maybe we need a logarithmic-like function rather than a simple multiplication?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, logarithmic-like is more reasonable.

@lhy1024 lhy1024 requested review from nolouch and JmPotato February 13, 2025 05:44
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dco-signoff: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the dco. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Allocating resources under RU_PER_SEC in priority
2 participants